[zenbiddist]

Last night I played in 5♠ off three aces. I understand this is a sub-optimal approach to bridge - but it did lead to an interesting situation.

Anyways, I decided to play a few cards rather than concede, in the hopes that something good might happen. After the opening lead, I needed all the tricks but one, but sadly two aces were out. After drawing trumps, I played a low diamond up. West showed out, and I played the king, which East won:

---

He sat there and deliberated. To put him out of his misery, I said:
"If you don't cash your ♣A now, I'll take the marked diamond finesse, unblock, cross to dummy and pitch a club on a diamond, so either way you get a club".

At this point the opponents put their cards on the table, and I noticed that LHO had diamonds! Confused, I called the director. What's your ruling?

[gordontd]

zenbiddist, on 2016-October-10, 22:52, said:

Last night I played in 5♠ off three aces. I understand this is a sub-optimal approach to bridge - but it did lead to an interesting situation.

Anyways, I decided to play a few cards rather than concede, in the hopes that something good might happen. After the opening lead, I needed all the tricks but one, but sadly two aces were out. After drawing trumps, I played a low diamond up. West showed out, and I played the king, which East won:

---

He sat there and deliberated. To put him out of his misery, I said:
"If you don't cash your ♣A now, I'll take the marked diamond finesse, unblock, cross to dummy and pitch a club on a diamond, so either way you get a club".

At this point the opponents put their cards on the table, and I noticed that LHO had diamonds! Confused, I called the director. What's your ruling?

Law 63A. Revoke Becomes Established
A revoke becomes established:
3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or
concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way

Is that what happened?

[zenbiddist]

The opponents hadn't verbally accepted the claim or contested it - it seems like the they faced their cards so that they could compute my claim visually. They seemed to know that play stops after a claim, which is why I don't think they perceived any risk in facing their cards (ie that a revoke would become etablished)

[gordontd]

zenbiddist, on 2016-October-11, 01:23, said:

The opponents hadn't verbally accepted the claim or contested it - it seems like the they faced their cards so that they could compute my claim visually. They seemed to know that play stops after a claim, which is why I don't think they perceived any risk in facing their cards (ie that a revoke would become etablished)

I think that's the crux of the matter and what the director would have to decide.

[weejonnie]

gordontd, on 2016-October-11, 01:11, said:

Law 63A. Revoke Becomes Established
A revoke becomes established:
3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or
concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way

Is that what happened?

So presumably the decision will be that the revoke is not established if EW hadn't agreed to the claim when the Director was called. NB Law 68 states

"A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably
did not intend to claim – for example, if declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn Law 54, not this Law, will apply)."

Even though a concession is equivalent to a claim, EW have not made a claim or concession - they are discussing South's claim/ concession. (This also has ramification in deciding whether a trick is 'likely to be won' or 'could not be lost' when allocating tricks (but is not really relevant here)).

So next time - when you see the revoke don't call the director until EW agree to your claim. (Nothing wrong with that - attention hasn't been drawn to the revoke and it is in time (before 1st call of next hand or the end of the round: 64B4).)

[gordontd]

weejonnie, on 2016-October-11, 01:47, said:

So presumably the decision will be that the revoke is not established if EW hadn't agreed to the claim when the Director was called. NB Law 68 states

"A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably
did not intend to claim – for example, if declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn Law 54, not this Law, will apply)."

Even though a concession is equivalent to a claim, EW have not made a claim or concession - they are discussing South's claim/ concession. (This also has ramification in deciding whether a trick is 'likely to be won' or 'could not be lost' when allocating tricks (but is not really relevant here)).

So next time - when you see the revoke don't call the director until EW agree to your claim. (Nothing wrong with that - attention hasn't been drawn to the revoke and it is in time (before 1st call of next hand or the end of the round: 64B4).)

It's interesting to compare and contrast

Quote

Law 63A. Revoke Becomes Established
A revoke becomes established:
3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or
concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way

with

Quote

Law 69A. When Agreement is Established
Agreement is established when a contestant assents to an opponent’s claim
or concession, and raises no objection to it before his side makes a call on
a subsequent board or before the round ends, whichever occurs first.

It does sound as though it is intended that agreement for the purpose of establishing a revoke be more easily created than for other purposes. However, from the OP's descriptions I think it's quite likely that agreement was not made even by the standards of L63A.

[chrism]

I agree that the revoke is not established. However, in that case all of the defenders' cards are now penalty cards, since this is not a 68B2 disputed concession. Unless it can credibly be argued that declarer could have known this might happen, he can take full advantage. Club underlead, followed by the diamond finesse and a club discard - 5S making 5.

[chrism]

Well, maybe not since play has already ceased. It seemed like justice though.

[sanst]

Does a player abandon his hand when he puts his cards on the table and thus concedes all the remaining tricks? I would answer that with "Yes", what else? You're certainly not allowed to discuss whether you concede or not with open cards. If the opps lay down their cards and that's not a concession, all their card become penalty cards. For the proviso of Law 68B2 one of the defenders should have conceded and the other immediately objected, but that's not the case here, so the declarer decides which card each of the opponents play at each trick.
My decisson would be that the revoke is established, so one trick to NS, E is on lead and he can play hearts, in which case the declarer discards a club, diamonds, and the declarer follows his proposed line of play which works notwithstanding the revoke, or clubs, NS losing only one club trick. Either way, 5♣ making.

[gordontd]

sanst, on 2016-October-11, 04:37, said:

Does a player abandon his hand when he puts his cards on the table and thus concedes all the remaining tricks?

Not when you are putting them on the table because your opponent has claimed. Nor if you were making a claim yourself.

sanst, on 2016-October-11, 04:37, said:

You're certainly not allowed to discuss whether you concede or not with open cards.

You certainly are allowed to discuss whether or not to accept declarer's claim with open cards.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2016-October-11, 04:45, said:

You certainly are allowed to discuss whether or not to accept declarer's claim with open cards.

Technically you either accept or contest opponents' claim.
During the following clarification you either maintain your contest or accept the claim.

Before entering into any discussion with your partner whether or not to accept the claim you must contest it.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2016-October-11, 04:54, said:

Technically you either accept or contest opponents' claim.
During the following clarification you either maintain your contest or accept the claim.

Before entering into any discussion with your partner whether or not to accept the claim you must contest it.

Where is this stated?

[pran]

pran, on 2016-October-11, 04:54, said:

Technically you either accept or contest opponents' claim.
During the following clarification you either maintain your contest or accept the claim.

Before entering into any discussion with your partner whether or not to accept the claim you must contest it.

gordontd, on 2016-October-11, 05:18, said:

Where is this stated?

Just read and understand Laws 68, 69 and 70.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2016-October-11, 07:14, said:

Just read and understand Laws 68, 69 and 70.

Oh, I have and I do and that's why I question your assertion.

[ggwhiz]

I don't know the laws that apply at all but want to rule -1 for not noticing (or playing) the opening bidder for TWO!!! voids.

[ahydra]

Sounds like the revoke is not established, as the claim hasn't yet been agreed and East hasn't yet led to the next trick.

Can I now apply

Law 62A said:

A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established.

?

West will have been made aware of his mistake when declarer saw that he had diamonds, so West replaces his heart or whatever with a diamond. No further rectification (edit: ok, the heart is a MPC, but that doesn't have any material impact). Now we consider the claim, which looks correct, so declarer is one off.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

Under which law do the defenders get to decide they can expose their hands while discussing the claim/concession?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-October-11, 09:15, said:

Under which law do the defenders get to decide they can expose their hands while discussing the claim/concession?

This is not up to the defenders to decide!
Once a claim is contested the Director should be summoned (Law 9) and then he handles the situation.
Now we have:

Law 70B said:

1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim.

2. Next, the Director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim (but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections).

3. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table.

Whatever the players do without the Director present at the table is at their own risk.

[barmar]

The wording of 63A seems to say that facing their hand is accepting the claim in this situation. It's not normally a claim acceptance, but in the case where their side has revoked, it is, and it establishes the revoke. I think it was written like this precisely to address this situation.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2016-October-11, 09:15, said:

Under which law do the defenders get to decide they can expose their hands while discussing the claim/concession?

Under the law that says that play ceases.